According to many teachers in the Hebrew Roots
movement, the Gentile mind is not equipped to properly comprehend Scripture.
They draw a distinction between “Gentile thinking” and
“Jewish thinking.” This distinction is alleged to be more than
merely having different presuppositions, but rather a completely different
thought process and basis for understanding. Consequently, Gentiles need a
thorough education in “Jewish thinking” in order to understand
the New Testament. This includes instruction in the Hebrew language. A
converted Gentile cannot normally read the Old and New Testaments and arrive
at a proper understanding without a Jewish teacher. Having
been taught “at the feet” of some Jewish scholar or rabbi is the
claimed credential of several prominent “teachers” of the Hebrew
Roots movement.

Historically, Christians have always believed
that the Old Testament is sufficient background material for the New
Testament. Paul distinguished between those who are able to comprehend and
those who are not. The criterion he gave has nothing to do with the Hebrew
language or “Jewish thinking.”

1 Cor.
2:11-15

11 For what
man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?
Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

12 Now we
have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God,
that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These
things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the
Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the
natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned.

15 But he
who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no
one.

NKJV

According to Paul, even “Jewish
scholars” do not understand the things of God unless they have received
the Spirit of God. Jesus Himself gave us a pretty good picture of the
unconverted “Jewish Scholar” in Matthew 23. It is therefore
critical that modern Hebrew Roots teachers fully disclose to their hearers
the names of the “Jewish Scholars” under whose instruction they
have learned. And those “scholars” should be carefully
scrutinized to see whether they are true believers.

The
New Testament was Primarily Written to Gentile Minds

With the exception of Matthew, Hebrews, 1 Peter,
and James, the New Testament was written by the Apostles for Gentile minds.
The New Testament contains almost no explanatory background information about
Jewish thinking. The Apostles frequently quoted the Old Testament, without
comment, as supporting material to the particular point they were making.
References to Old Testament events were frequently given as illustrations and
moral lessons in the language of the Greeks. More often than not, they quoted
the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Greek
speaking reader was expected to be familiar with the Septuagint, and this was
deemed by the Apostles to be sufficient for understanding their own writings
in the New Testament. The Apostles frequently quoted from the Greek
translation of the Old Testament with which their readers were familiar.
There was no appeal made by the Apostles to extra biblical Jewish sources for
explanatory information. One wonders why modern Gentile Christians need such
sources when the Apostles obviously did not think it beneficial for their
Gentile audiences in the first century who knew little about Jewish thinking.
In fact, Jesus Himself was antagonistic to such sources, claiming they
perverted the Word of God (Matt. 15:2-14). The Jewish scholarly commentaries
were characterized by Jesus as “the
blind leading the blind” (v. 14). Why would modern Christians, who
have received the “Spirit of Truth,” want to be taught by
“the Blind?” Yet, such is now the case in this movement.

Some might contend that in the context of the
early Church, there was a great deal of oral teaching by the Jewish Apostles,
and the Epistles were merely supplementary material. That is true in some
cases. Paul spent three years in Ephesus before
writing his epistle to this church. However, the major theological treatise
on the Law (Romans) was written by Paul to a local church no Apostle had yet
visited. His second Epistle on the Law and grace, Galatians, was written to
the churches (plural) of Galatia, of which
we have no direct record of his spending time in discipleship. Yet, Paul
expected that the Greek Old Testament (LXX) would be adequate background
material for the Gentile mind to comprehend his teaching on the covenants,
the Law, and grace.

Is
“Repentance” Turning Back to Moses?

In his website article series on
“repentance,” Brad Scott made his real intentions clear in the
closing paragraph of part I.

“The foundation
of repentance is the return to where you came from. The root of
repentance is to go back to something. Adam came from the dust, and that is
where he will teshuvah, or return to. The root of repentance is to go back to
something. It is what we are to go
back to, that is critical.”1[Bold mine]

Scott is intent on incorporating into the term
“repentance” the idea of returning
to a former condition. And as he stated in the above quote, the thing to
which one is to return is the critical
factor. In Scott’s theology, this is a return to God’s laws
revealed through Moses, the ultimate destination for his followers. He made
this point crystal clear.

“The
very first words that we hear from Yochanan the immerser (John the Baptizer)
is REPENT! Who was he speaking these words to? the Nations? Of course not.
The nations would not have a clue as to what to go back to! He speaks this
word to the local Jewish leadership. Yochanan is pleading in behalf of
Yahshua for YHVH's covenant people to
go back to the covenant. Yahshua's first words to the Jewish leaders
is to REPENT! (Mattityahu 4:17). The two main religious systems in Judaism,
the Pharisees and the Sadducees, had strayed away from the Word of YHVH. He
certainly knew this in advance. Go Back! YHVH says. The common myth that
Judaism was a law-keeping religion that YHVH came to denounce and change is a
lie. Most of the Jewish leaders of that time were big time law breakers.”2

Was
Jesus Simply Moses’ Revival Preacher or The New Lawgiver?

When Jesus and John the Baptist called Israel to
“repentance,” Scott wants you to believe that he was calling them
back to Moses. Hence, Scott makes John and Jesus missionaries and preachers
of Moses by manipulating the word “repentance,” as we shall prove
shortly. The Scripture, however, does not portray Jesus as Moses’
revival preacher, but as the new Lawgiver, proclaiming a new Law far superior
to that of Moses. Jesus brought the “Law of Christ,” a higher
Law, which superseded the Law of Moses. It did not supplement the Law of
Moses. Consequently, the “household of Christ,” according to
Scripture, is not the former “household of Moses,” but a
completely new “household.”

Hebrews 3:1-6

1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the
heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession,
Christ Jesus,

2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as
Moses also was faithful in all His house.

3 For this One has been counted worthy of more
glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the
house.

4 For every house is built by someone, but He
who built all things is God.

5 And Moses
indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony
of those things which would be spoken afterward,

6 but
Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold
fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.

NKJV

Paul drew a clear distinction between the
“house of Moses” and the “house of Christ.” Keep in
mind that Paul wrote this to Jewish believers, implying that they were no
longer of the “household of Moses” after joining the
“household of Christ.” A few chapters later, the Apostle expands
on this distinction.

Hebrews 8:1-13

1 Now this is the main point of the things we
are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of
the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true
tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

3 For every high priest is appointed to offer
both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have
something to offer.

4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a
priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;

5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly
things, as Moses was
divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said,
"See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the
mountain."

6 But now He
has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a
better covenant, which was established on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless,
then no place would have been sought for a second.

8 Because finding fault with them, He says: [from Jer. 31:31-34]

"Behold, the days are coming, says the
LORD, when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel and with
the house of Judah—

9 not according
to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by
the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant,
and I disregarded them, says the LORD.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make
with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws
in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and
they shall be My people.

11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and
none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the
least of them to the greatest of them.

12 For I will be merciful to their
unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no
more."

13 In that He says, "A new
covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming
obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

NKJV

The
Meaning of “Repentance”

The Greek word translated “repent”
in the NT is “metanoew” (me-ta-nah-eh-O), Strong’s #3340.
As with a multitude of Greek verbs, it consists of a verb prefixed with a
preposition. “Meta” (preposition) means “after.”
And “noiew” means “understand” or
“comprehend.” Hence, the basic sense of “metanoew” is
“after-thought.” In modern English idiom we would say,
“after second thought.” It
indicates a change of mind after further contemplation. All Greek
lexicons define this word as a “change of mind.” None suggest, as
does Scott, that this change of mind is a return to a former place,
condition, or state. In fact, it is usually a turning AWAY from a former way of thinking that is being stressed. We
will list below a couple of examples of lexical definitions.

Easton’s
Bible Dictionary

Repentance, There are three Greek words
used in the New Testament to denote repentance.

(1.) The verb metamelomai is used of a
change of mind, such as to produce regret or even remorse on account of sin,
but not necessarily a change of heart. This word is used with reference to
the repentance of Judas (Mat_27:3).

(2.) Metanoeo
[metanoew], meaning to change one's mind and purpose,
as the result of after knowledge.

(3.) This
verb [metanoew], with the cognate noun metanoia, is used of true repentance, a change of mind and purpose and life, to
which remission of sin is promised. 3

Unger’s
Bible Dictionary

REPENTANCE, a
"change" of mind. In the theological and ethical sense a
fundamental and thorough change in the hearts of men from sin and toward God.
4

The most comprehensive study of the koine Greek language from ancient
Greek writings was done by the German scholar, Gerhard Kittle. His ten volume
Greek lexicon (TDNT) far exceeds all other lexicons. While most Greek
lexicons trace Greek word usage in the NT and the LXX, Kittle adds massive
evidence from thousands of secular Greek manuscripts written in both
classical and koine Greek of the period. There is no better source for
understanding the “common” meanings of Greek words in every day life
of the first century. According to Kittle’s TDNT, “metanoew”
(repent) was used in secular Greek literature of the period to mean, “change one’s mind,”
“adopt another view,”
or “change one’s feelings.”
He gives many examples of these in Greek literature. Kittle then adds, “…if the change of mind
derives from recognition that the earlier view was foolish, improper or evil,
there arises the sense ‘to regret,’ ‘to feel
remorse’.” He cites many examples of this as well.5 In no case does Kittle suggest
the idea of returning to a former place, state, or condition, as part of the
Greek word “repent” in common Greek usage. Brad Scott is simply
wrong.

In the face of massive contrary linguistic
evidence, Scott alleges that Christianity has redefined “repentance”
to suite its own ends. Yet, as we shall see, it is Scott who has done
precisely what he alleges of Gentile Christians – twist the meaning to
suite his own purpose.

Scott’s
Manipulation of “Repentance”

Scott completely ignores the etymology of
“metanoew” and all the lexical evidence, all the while pretending to
offer a more nuanced definition which he claims is derived from the Hebrew
equivalent. He claims that Jesus, John, and their hearers would have held his
view of “repentance” because of their Hebrew background and
alleged equivalent Hebrew term with which they would have been intimately
familiar.

“When Yahshua and Yochanan (John the
baptizer) said to the P’rushim (Pharisees), ‘repent for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand’ what did they mean by repent? Do you
really believe the meaning of repent in the English or the Greek is what they
meant? Do you believe that 23,214 verses of teaching in the Tenach (Old
Testament) about this word is irrelevant?”6

Scott gives the impression, in the above quote,
that there are over twenty-three thousand verses in the Old Testament that
contain teaching on the word “repent,” and that all modern
lexicons ignore this “teaching.” The fact is, there is only a
handful of Old Testament verses that use the verb “repent,” or
its noun form “repentance,” and not one of them supports
Scott’s definition.

Scott’s
“Shell Game” Exposed

Brad Scott plays a “shell game” with
the Hebrew words. He declares by fiat that the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek
word “metanoew” (repent) is the Hebrew word,
“shoov” (Strong’s #7725). He offers not one shred of
linguistic or historical evidence in support of this claim, which is THE
fundamental premise of his entire series of articles on repentance.

While it is true that “shoov” (or “shoob”)
does mean “return” in many cases, it does not always.
Strong’s Hebrew lexicon states this very clearly.

“7725 שׁוּבshûbshoobA primitive root; to turn
back (hence, away) transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively
(not necessarily with the idea of return
to the starting point); generally to retreat; often adverbially again:”7 [emphasis mine]

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
adds that “shoov” can either mean “return” or
“turn away,” the latter having nothing to do with returning to a
former place or state.8
Numerous examples of this meaning can be found, (Gen. 27:44-45 for
example).

Even IF “shoov” (shoob) was the
Hebrew equivalent for the Greek “metanoew”
(repent), which it is not, it would not prove Scott’s point. Even the
Hebrew word “shoov” is used in Old Testament contexts where the
idea of returning back to a former state, place, or condition is clearly not
intended, as Strong’s lexicon and the ISBE point out. Consequently, the
meaning Scott seeks to squeeze out of this word is NOT always essential to
its basic meaning, and therefore not necessarily the sense even if it was the
exact equivalent for the Greek word for “repent” in the New
Testament. Had Scott been successful in establishing equivalence between the
Hebrew, “shoov,” and the Greek “metanoew,” the
most he would have accomplished would be to establish a possibility, but not
a necessity. In other words, had Jesus and John the Baptist used the Hebrew
word “shoov” instead of the Greek “metanoew” they
might have meant “turn away” rather than “turn back”
(to Moses) as Scott insists.

Earlier I used the term “shell game”
to describe what Scott has done. The “shell game” is a classic
swindle in which slight of hand is used to fool the target of the con. And
slight of hand is what Scott has apparently done here. The way to determine
equivalence between words of different languages is to examine ancient translations from one language to the
other. There are two such sources for determining equivalence between Old
Testament Hebrew words and New Testament Greek words. They are the Septuagint
(LXX), and the Apostles’ quotes of the Old Testament in the New
Testament. It is a simple thing to search the Septuagint (LXX) to verify
Hebrew equivalents for Greek terms. There are no New Testament Apostolic
quotes of the Old Testament that use the word “repent.” We are
left with the Septuagint as our source.

One cannot accuse the LXX translators of
“Gentile thinking” or any bias against Judaism, since they were themselves
Jewish scholars living shortly before the appearance of Jesus Christ. They
were far more fluent in the Hebrew of the Torah and ancient Greek than any
modern Hebrew Roots teacher, including Brad Scott. They translated the Hebrew
Bible into Greek, choosing the best Greek equivalents for the Hebrew words of
the Old Testament. If Scott were correct in his claim that John and Jesus had
the Jewish idea of “return” contained in the word
“shoov” when they spoke of “repentance” in the
Gospels, we would expect the LXX translators to render the Hebrew word
“shoov” as “metanoew”
(repent) in their Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. However, not
once did those seventy Jewish scholars translate “shoov” as
“metanoew” in their Greek translation of the Old Testament! So, not only
does Scott’s view flow counter to all modern linguistic scholars, but
also the Jewish scholars of the Septuagint!

The Jewish translators of the Septuagint used
the Greek word “metanoew” (repent) in their translation. But, when
it appears, it translates the Hebrew word, “nacham”
(Strong’s #5162), not “shoov.” They used “metanoew”
sixteen times in their Greek translation in the following verses: 1 Sam.
15:29, Prov. 20:25, Prov. 24:32, Jer. 4:28, Jer. 8:6, Jer. 18:8,10, Jer.
31:19 (38:19 in LXX), Joel 2:13,14, Am. 7:3,6, Jon. 3:9,10, Jon. 4:2, Zech.
8:14.

In each of these verses, “metanoew”
translates the Hebrew word “nacham” (#5162), except in Prov.
20:25 & Prov. 24:32. And in neither of these exceptions do we find the
Hebrew word “shoov.” In the former it translates a Hebrew term
that means to “inquire,” and in the latter it translates two
Hebrew words meaning to “make to understand.”

So, what is the meaning of the Hebrew word
“nacham” which the LXX translators rendered as “metanoew?” The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says that nacham “implies difficulty in breathing,
hence, ‘to pant,’ ‘to sigh,’ ‘to groan’
… Naturally it came to signify ‘to lament’ or ‘to
grieve,’ and when the emotion was produced by the desire of good for
others, it merged into compassion and sympathy, and when incited by a
consideration of one's own character and deeds it means ‘to rue,’
‘to repent’.”9In no case does “nacham”
mean to return to a previous place, state, or condition.

Furthermore, there are a few verses in the
Hebrew Bible where both Hebrew words “shoov” and
“nacham” appear together in the same sentence, but are mutually
exclusive! In other words, the context clearly shows that they are NOT the
same thing, but were being contrasted with each other, or their diverse
meanings were used to compliment each other. For example, Jer. 31:19 says
this: “Surely after that I was
turned (shoov) I repented (nacham).” That these two words are
contrasted in this way proves their meanings are not the same. If
“shoov” means “repent,” as Scott claims, then
Jeremiah said, “After I repented
I repented,” a rather nonsensical statement! The meaning is
precisely as the NKJV renders it, “Surely
after that I was turned (changed course), I repented (regretted the former
course).”

In Jer. 4:28, the Lord made a similar
contrasting statement using both terms. “I
have purposed it, and will not repent (nacham), neither will I turn back
(shoov) from it.” The word “neither” in the above
sentence indicates contrasting ideas, NOT a restatement of the same idea.
Consequently, “shoov” (translated “return”) and
“nacham” (translated “repent”) do NOT have the same
meaning. The former means to “retreat” or “return”
and the later “to change the mind” or “regret.”

Joel 2:14 uses both
terms as well. “Who knoweth if He
will return (shoov) and repent (nacham) and leave a blessing behind Him.”
Here the two terms have a cumulative effect, hoping that God will do two
distinct things: return to His favor for Israel and also
change His mind (or regret) regarding His intent to judge Israel.

We have at least two hard pieces of evidence
that “shoov” and “nacham” do not have the same
meaning. First, both terms are used in the same sentences in contrast to each
other. Second, the LXX translators frequently rendered “nacham”
as “metanoew,” but never rendered“shoov” as “metanoew.”
They did not view “shoov” and “metanoew” as
equivalent terms. If the LXX translators, who knew both Hebrew and Greek, did
not see “shoov” and “nacham” as equivalent, or more
importantly, did not see “shoov” and “metanoew” as
equivalent, why would we suppose that Jesus and John the Baptist did, or
their hearers? More importantly, why should we think Brad Scott knows more
about linguistics than the Jewish translators of the LXX and authors of all
Greek lexicons? If the LXX translators did not think “metanoew”
meant “to return to where you
came from,” neither should you. Scott has played fast and loose
with the Hebrew words in order to lead you where he wants you to go, back to
the Law of Moses.

Should
Gentile Pagans “Return” to Where They Came From?

If “repent” (metanoew) in the
Gospels means “to return to where
you came from,” then the use of the same word in evangelizing
Gentiles would mean they should return to their pagan roots, their
“wild olive tree!” Scott does not seem to notice this problem.
While arguing that “repent” in the Gospels requires his
definition, he wrote the following;

“The very first words that
we hear from Yochanan the immerser (John the Baptizer) is REPENT! Who was he
speaking these words to? the Nations? Of course not. The nations would not
have a clue as to what to go back to!”10

Yet, Paul encouraged the Gentiles to
“repent” as part of his evangelism.

Acts 26:19-20

21 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not
disobedient to the heavenly vision,

20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then
to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

Here, Scott’s definition of “return to where you came from”
simply will not work in the context. “Works befitting repentance”
in Scott’s bogus lexicon would be offering sacrifices to Zeus or the goddess
Dianna! The same problem appears in the other passages that speak of Gentile
“repentance,” none of which suggest “return to where you came from.” (Acts 17:30, Acts 26:20), and the noun form
“repentance” (Luke 24:47, Acts 11:18, 2 Cor. 7:10, 2 Pet. 3:9).
Jesus told the disciples, when sending them out to the Gentiles with the
Great Commission, “that repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in His name to all
nations” (Luke 24:47). How does Brad Scott suppose these
Gentiles would “have a clue as to what to go back
to?”

Other
Greek Words Mean “Return” or “Turn Back”

There are other common Greek words that mean
“return back” and “return again.” First, “upostrefw”
(hupo-strephoStrong’s #5290)
comes from the preposition “hupo” (under or back) and
“strepho” (to turn). Examples can be found in Luke 1:56, Luke
2:20,43,45, Luke 4:1,14). Second, “anastrefw”
means “return again,” from the preposition “ana”
(again) and “strepho” (to turn). This latter term is probably the
closest to the Hebrew “shoov” as Scott defines it. Yet, it is
nowhere used in the New Testament in the sense Scott promotes, a turning back
to the Law of Moses. In fact, it is never used in an evangelistic sense in
the New Testament.

What is painfully obvious from Scott’s
treatment of “repentance” is that he is manipulating the evidence
to suite his purposes. His work is unscholarly, manipulative, and malicious,
in my humble opinion.

The
“Judaizers” (neo-Galatians) are Back

A distinction needs to be made between two
classes of modern “Law keepers” – those who practice
“Law keeping” as a preference but not a necessity (Messianics who
are Jewish by birth), and those who claim or imply that it is a salvation
issue and binding on Gentiles. Brad Scott clearly falls into this latter
category, what is commonly referred to as a “Judaizer.” Scott is
proclaiming the same heresy Paul called “another gospel.” Here it
is in Brad Scott’sown words.

“I am going to, very bluntly, tell you
that without a scriptural understanding of repentance, you are NOT redeemed
or reconciled back to YHVH. To put it more perfectly, as Sha’ul would
say, you are not saved.”11

By making his definition of
“repentance” synonymous with a “return” to keeping
the Law of Moses, Scott is essentially saying that observance of the Law of
Moses is necessary to salvation.

Furthermore, he places all Christians who are
not “Torah observant” within the category of the “workers
of iniquity” to whom Jesus promised to answer, “depart from Me, I
never knew you.” He equates this with the “mystery of
iniquity” which gives birth to the Antichrist. Here it is in Brad
Scott’s own words.

“If you are curious to know who the
workers of iniquity are in Mattityahu 7:23, you can find them here. They are
those who are TORAHLESS, lawless ones. This is the translation of the King
James English, "workers of iniquity". It is also a description of
their leader, whether they know it or not, in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8. He is
the mystery of iniquity that already works and is called the wicked one or
the lawless one.”12

Scott’s claim that his perverted
“repentance” (return to the Law of Moses) is essential to
salvation puts him and his movement in the same camp as the ancient Judaizers
who “troubled” and “unsettled” the Gentile believers.
Paul called that message “another gospel” and told the Galatians
that those who embraced it were “estranged from Christ” and
“fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4).

We would do well to keep in mind the letter to
the Gentiles, approved by all the Apostles and elders of the Jerusalem
congregation.

“The apostles, the
elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings,

Since we have heard that some
who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls,
saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law’ — to
whom we gave no such commandment — it seemed good to us, being
assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved
Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report
the same things by word of mouth.

For it seemed good to the Holy
Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things
strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you
will do well. Farewell.” (Acts 15:23-24).